FIXING THE CANADIAN FORCES' METHOD OF DEALING WITH DEATH OR

Document Sample
FIXING THE CANADIAN FORCES' METHOD OF DEALING WITH DEATH OR Powered By Docstoc
					 FIXING THE CANADIAN FORCES’
METHOD OF DEALING WITH DEATH
      OR DISMEMBERMENT
Report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of
   the Standing Senate Committee on National
               Security and Defence


                              Committee Members

                              Sen. Michael A. Meighen - Chair,
                              Sen. Joseph A. Day - Deputy Chair,
                              Sen. Norman K. Atkins
                              Sen. Colin Kenny*
                              Sen. John (Jack) Wiebe




*Chair, Committee on National Security and Defence

                               Second Session

                         Thirty-Seventh Parliament

                                  April 2003
Information regarding the committee can be obtained through its web site:
                  www.senate-senat.ca/vets-comb.asp
                            www.sen-sec.ca

                     Questions can be directed to:
                      Toll free: 1-800-267-7362

                            Or via e-mail:
             The Committee Clerk: defence@sen.parl.gc.ca
      Veterans Affairs Committee Chair: meighm@sen.parl.gc.ca
National Security and Defence Committee Chair: kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca

                   Media inquiries can be directed to:
                        ckres2@sen.parl.gc.ca




                                   ii
  FIXING THE CANADIAN FORCES’
METHOD OF DEALING WITH DEATH OR
        DISMEMBERMENT




 Report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of
    the Standing Senate Committee on National
                Security and Defence




                    April 2003
                                                                               MEMBERSHIP


THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

The Honourable Colin Kenny (Chair)
The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall (Deputy-Chair)

and

The Honourable Senators:

Norman K. Atkins                                           Joseph A. Day
Tommy Banks                                                *John Lynch-Staunton (or Noel A. Kinsella)
Jane Cordy                                                 Michael A. Meighen
*Sharon Carstairs, P.C. (or Fernand Robichaud,             David P. Smith, P.C.
P.C.)                                                      John (Jack) Wiebe

*Ex officio members

                                       (Clerk: Barbara Reynolds)
                                       ---------------------------------

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS/
Subcommittee on National Security and Defence

The Honourable Michael A. Meighen (Chair)
The Honourable Joseph A. Day (Deputy-Chair)

and

The Honourable Senators:

Norman K. Atkins                                           *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella)
*Sharon Carstairs, P.C. (or Fernand Robichaud,             John (Jack) Wiebe
P.C.)
Colin Kenny

*Ex officio members

                                       (Clerk: Barbara Reynolds)
                                       ---------------------------------

Note: The Honourable Senators Forrestall, Banks, Cordy and Stratton also served on the Subcommittee
during the course of this study.



                                                      ii
                                                              ORDER OF REFERENCE



   Extract of the Journals of the Senate, Wednesday, November 20, 2002:

           The Honourable Senator Kinsella for the Honourable Senator Meighen moved,
       seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins:

          That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be
       authorized to examine and report on the health care provided to veterans of war and of
       peacekeeping missions; the implementation of the recommendations made in its
       previous reports on such matters; and the terms of service, post-discharge benefits and
       health care of members of the regular and reserve forces as well as members of the
       RCMP and of civilians who have served in close support of uniformed peacekeepers;
       and all other related matters.

          That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject during the Second
       Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament and the First Session of the Thirty-seventh
       Parliament be referred to the Committee;

          That the Committee report no later than June 30, 2003.

          The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

                                          Paul C. Bélisle

                                        Clerk of the Senate
                                   ---------------------------------


   Extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National
Security and Defence of Monday, November 25, 2002:

           It was moved by the Honourable Senator Banks, - That the order of reference relating
       to the health care of veterans be referred to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.

          The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

                                       Barbara Reynolds

                                     Clerk of the Committee




                                                  iii
                                                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                                                                                                  Page


CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD ........................................................................................ 2

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4

MAJOR BRUCE HENWOOD ....................................................................................... 6

1.A      THE SERVICE INCOME SECURITY INSURANCE PLAN (SISIP) .......... 8

1.B      THE GENERAL OFFICERS INSURANCE PLAN ....................................... 11

2.    THE TREATMENT OF INJURED SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES ... 16

3.    GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT .............................................................................. 20

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 25

LIST OF WITNESSES................................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX 1

MATRIX OF BENEFITS AS SUBMITTEDBY MAJOR HENWOOD ................. 29

APPENDIX II

BIOGRAPHIES OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE....................................... 31
                                                CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD




      I believe it is rare in public life that one has the opportunity to effect

real change to public policy that will have a positive effect on the lives of a

group of Canadians. But thanks to the incredible determination of Major

Bruce Henwood, the compassion and support displayed by his family

during severely trying circumstances, the Senate Subcommittee on

Veterans’ Affairs was able to expose issues of inequity and unfairness and

to bring about positive change.

      Through our hearings on the application of the Canadian Armed

Forces Service Income Security Plan to personnel such as Major Henwood,

we were able to demonstrate a need for change. And, this change in policy

was announced by the Minister of National Defence the day before his

officials were to testify before our Subcommittee. The new policy, effective

as of 13 February 2003, addresses the core anomaly between the treatment

of the most senior officers and all other ranks so that in the future all

Canadian Forces personnel, regardless of rank, will be covered while on

duty for accidental dismemberment.

      Major Henwood and his family are to be congratulated for pursuing

this issue to a just conclusion for those who may be injured in the future. It

is my sincere hope and that of the Committee that in short order, this

                                       2
change in policy will be made retroactive by the Minister so that the justice

and equity achieved will aid those members of the Canadian Forces who

were dismembered in the past.

     I would like to thank all of those who appeared before our

Subcommittee for their testimony. I believe, given the attention paid to our

work by the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, that all

our recommendations will be given a high priority and implemented

quickly.




                   The Honourable Michael A. Meighen
                                Chair




                                      3
                                                                                  INTRODUCTION




        The Canadian Forces have not always treated injured soldiers with

either compassion or understanding. A number of internal studies of the

release system over the past three years have concluded that injured and

sick soldiers have too often been left alone to deal with a complex,

bureaucratic system that can deny them the disability benefits and

programs that are their due, and proper recognition for their service. The

system has been found to make little allowance for the fact that soldiers

injured seriously enough to be released are often too ill or psychologically

vulnerable to defend, much less promote, their interests.1 They are forced

to accept what the system says they are entitled to because they do not

have the combination of education, determination, and perseverance

necessary to pursue their grievance, if necessary, for years on end, to a final

decision by the Chief of Defence Staff. But the experience leaves them

bitter and a very poor advertisement for the Canadian Forces.




(1) See the article by Jeff Esau of the Canadian Press, as carried in the Halifax Daily News, 16 December 2002.
    Many other papers carried an abbreviated version of the article.


                                                      4
     There are exceptions. The Subcommittee investigated the case of one

soldier who has used his experience and 5½ years of his life to force

changes in the way those who suffer dismemberment are treated.




                                   5
Major Bruce Henwood


     In 1995, while serving with the 8th Hussars in Croatia as part of the

United Nations peacekeeping mission, Major Henwood had both legs

blown off below the knee when the United Nations vehicle in which he

was riding ran over an anti-tank mine. In due course, Major Henwood

discovered that the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), an

insurance plan that he and other members of the forces are obliged to pay

into, would not compensate him for the loss of his legs. He learned that,

contrary to his understanding, SISIP is just an income security plan that

guarantees clients 75% of their pay on release if they are injured. Because

Major Henwood’s pension and disability benefits added up to more than

75% of his pay, SISIP, under the terms of the policy, SISIP could not pay

him anything.

     In May 1997, some 20 months after he was injured, Major Henwood

filed a grievance with the Canadian Forces which the Chief of the Defence

Staff referred to the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. Five years later, the

Board recommended to the Chief of Defence Staff that the grievance be

denied, arguing that the dismemberment benefits clause in his insurance

policy was not intended to provide a lump sum payment, but was part of

SISIP’s income protection function. Major Henwood was not surprised by



                                     6
the recommendation. He did not deny that SISIP, under its current

coverage, had to deny him compensation, but argued that the policy is

misleading   and    should   be   reformulated    to   provide   lump   sum

compensation for soldiers who suffer dismemberment in the service of

their country.

     Major Henwood is concerned that, like him, other members of armed

forces believe SISIP will compensate them for the injuries they suffer. He

argues that only after reading the fine print do they discover otherwise.

     Major Henwood appeared before the Subcommittee on 3 February

2003. His testimony raised three issues:

  1. The lack of any form of Accidental Death and Dismemberment

     insurance for members of the Canadian Forces below the rank of

     Colonel;

  2. The treatment of the injured soldier and his/her family following the

     injury and through treatment and rehabilitation;

  3. The grievance-settlement procedure.

     The following pages will deal with each of these issues in turn.




                                      7
1.A   The Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP)


      The Service Income Security Insurance Plan administers the Long

Term Disability insurance plan that provides an income replacement

benefit whether a member is injured in the line of duty or not. In this

respect it is different from the Pension Act, administered by Veterans

Affairs Canada, which pays benefits only to those members injured in the

line of duty. This fact was a major consideration in the original decision to

offer a long-term disability insurance plan to all ranks of the Canadian

Forces.

      According to Mr. Pierre Lemay, President of the Service Income

Security Insurance Plan, SISIP was created in 1969 to provide protection for

military personnel for non-duty-related injuries as a complement to their

coverage for service-related injuries under the Pension Act; that is, if the

injured member of the forces was eligible for a pension under the Pension

Act, he or she was not eligible for the SISIP benefit, and vice-versa. It was

only in the 1970’s that it was realized that in the majority of cases the

Pension Act only paid a partial pension and that a 10% or 20% benefit was

not enough for a family to live on.

      In 1982 the coverage offered under SISIP was extended to include

injuries regardless of whether they occurred while on- or off-duty and

participation in the plan was made mandatory for all those who joined the



                                      8
Canadian Forces thereafter. The SISIP benefit thus topped up to 75% of

salary upon release the benefits that were payable under other programs,

such as the Canada/Quebec Pension Plan and the Canadian Forces

Superannuation, and that would be paid for a service-related injury under

the Pension Act. If these other benefits add up to 75% or more of the

member’s pay upon release, nothing is payable under the Long Term

Disability Plan.

        The Long-Term Disability Plan has thus never contained what is

called an “accidental death and dismemberment” or “AD and D” benefit, a

lump sum payment based on the severity of the dismemberment, not on

the income of the victim.2

        The core of Major Henwood’s case is that a member of the Canadian

Forces who suffers dismemberment as a result of service should receive a

lump sum of money in compensation for the injury. In his testimony he

argued from personal experience about the devastating financial,

emotional and psychological impact of such an injury. His career in the

military was abruptly ended years before his retirement, years during

which he could expect promotion, or at least to increase his earnings. He

was fortunate. He found management level civilian employment outside

the military. But he summarised the first “official” piece of correspondence

he remembers receiving about his injury, a letter from Cliff Chadderton of

(2) Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, Issue No. 2, 12 February
    2003, pages 66-67. Hereafter, date 2:66-67.


                                                      9
the War Amputees, as: “Don’t worry. Here is our best guess of what sort of

financial situation you will be in for the rest of your life, because you will

be out of a job”.

        Major Henwood strengthened his case by showing members of the

Committee a matrix he had developed of the benefits different ranks would

receive from the Long-Term Disability Plan.3 This matrix showed very

clearly that the more senior the rank, the greater the benefit likely to be

received. Assuming multiple limb loss he found that:

        Only 10% of privates would receive anything from SISIP. Any private that

        is married with children would receive nothing. An unmarried private with

        ten years service would receive approximately $140 per month for three

        years. I fail to see the logic in that difference.

        How does this provide income security and how is this compensation for the

        loss sustained? At the opposite end of the spectrum, most Lieutenant-

        Colonels – 92% by my calculation – would receive Accidental

        Dismemberment Benefit ranging from $852 to $1,500 a month for three

        years.




(3) The Matrix Major Henwood submitted is reproduced as an appendix.


                                                    10
        He concluded:

        “This illustrates a skewed formula for the determination of benefits. Those

soldiers likely to be injured receive a pittance compared with those in leadership

positions”.4

        An even more persuasive argument was the fact that the most senior

officers of the Canadian Forces, Colonels and Generals had access to a

special package of benefits, the General Officers Insurance Plan.


1.B     The General Officers Insurance Plan


        The General Officers Insurance Plan for Colonels and Generals has

three separate and independent components:

    1. A basic life insurance plan;

    2. The Long-Term Disability insurance;

    3. Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance.




(4) Ibid. 3 February 2003, 2:12. Major Henwood’s argument fails to point out that all the above, whether private
    or Lieutenant Colonel, would receive at least 75% of their salary on release. The senior ranks receive more
    from SISIP because benefits from the Pension Act and the Canada/Quebec pension plans are based on incomes
    that are only a fraction of the salary of even a Lieutenant Colonel, much less a General or equivalent.


                                                      11
        The Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance, paid for by

Treasury Board, pays a benefit of up to $250,000 depending on the severity

of the injuries, i.e. the full amount is payable in the event of accidental

death or the accidental loss of multiple limbs or loss of an eye and a limb

whereas a lesser amount is payable for the loss of one hand, foot or eye, etc.

        The General Officers Insurance Plan for Colonels and Generals was

introduced in 1972 and is based on the benefit package provided

Parliamentarians and the Executive Category of the Public Service and

senior officers of the RCMP. Like the Long-Term Disability insurance it

applies to all accidental injuries, regardless of whether the injury is

sustained on duty or off duty.5

        Major Henwood pointed out that the accidental dismemberment

coverage offered, at government expense, to the most senior officers of the

Canadian Forces, but denied to all other ranks, challenged “the moral and

ethical leadership of the senior leadership”:

        GOIP [General Officers’ Insurance Plan] is wrong in its present format. It

        is a double standard.       It violates the age-old principle of the military

        commanders looking after their men first and then themselves.

        They have taken something more important and fundamental than just an

        insurance policy perk. They have shaken the trust of their subordinates and

        have degraded the leadership ethos. This is a question of ethical conduct that

(5) Ibid., 12 February 2003, 2:76


                                            12
        has a direct impact on the morale of the Canadian Forces and challenges the

        integrity of the generals.6

        A day before the appearance of Lieutenant-General Couture,

Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources-Military, the Minister of

National Defence announced that improved accidental dismemberment

coverage for Canadian Forces members would be introduced very soon.

The new coverage would provide for a sliding scale and lump-sum

payment of up to $250,000 in case of accidental dismemberment in the line

of duty for all regular and reserve Canadian Forces personnel below the

rank of Colonel.7 This was confirmed a week later when the Minister, the

Honourable John McCallum, appeared before the Committee.

        Minister McCallum testified that when the anomaly was brought to

his attention by Major Henwood and the media, he, like other Canadians

was struck by its unfairness and started the process of changing the

situation. While the Government had not worked out all the details, he

understood that it would make annual payments into a fund which would

finance future accidental dismemberment benefits. In other words, the

members of the Canadian Forces would not have to contribute to funding

the benefit. He also assured the Committee that he fully believed that if the

anomaly was unfair to-day, it had been unfair ever since 1972 when the

senior officers were given coverage, or at least since 1982 when Long Term

(6) Ibid., 3 February 2003, 2:13-14.
(7) Ibid., 12 February 2003, 2:64.


                                         13
Disability coverage under SISIP became mandatory for all new members of

the Forces.

        He had found, however, that implementation of retroactivity would

take time. The records of service personnel released for injuries in past

years would have to be hand searched and it would have to be determined

whether or not the accidental dismemberment was service-related or not.

Once the number of injured personnel and the extent of their injuries was

known, the method of making the retroactive payment would have to be

worked out.

        The Committee takes note of his promise with regard to

retroactivity, “to exhaust every avenue in an effort to do something

positive on this front” and to report progress to the Committee at a future

date.

        The policy Minister McCallum announced and explained will meet

the core anomaly between the treatment of the most senior officers and all

other ranks – in the future, all Canadian Forces personnel, regardless of

rank, will be covered while on duty for accidental dismemberment. The

Committee notes, however, that the coverage of Colonels and Generals

includes payment of the principal sum ($250,000) in the event of accidental

death and that both their death and accidental dismemberment benefits are

payable regardless of whether they are on- or off-duty when the accident

occurs.    While Minister McCallum promised to look into the issue of


                                     14
extending the new accidental dismemberment coverage for all but Colonels

and Generals and their equivalents to include off-duty accidents, he

testified that he did not believe this aspect of the issue “has the same

urgency in terms of fairness and equity as the on-duty aspect”.

     The Committee respectfully disagrees with the Minister.           The

essential first step has been taken, but the issue of inequity remains. The

Committee heard testimony from insurance consultants that Accidental

Death and Dismemberment insurance is a reasonably-priced, common and

popular benefit in private enterprise.

The Committee recommends:

     1. That the Department of National Defence entitle all members of

        the Canadian Forces, regardless of rank, to the same full

        coverage for accidental death and dismemberment;

     2. That the Department of National Defence introduce at the

        earliest possible time retroactivity to the payment of accidental

        death and dismemberment benefits to Canadian Forces

        personnel who have been injured while on duty in the past.




                                         15
2. The Treatment of Injured Soldiers and their Families



    Over Christmas New Year 1996, Major Henwood wrote a paper

entitled “Care of the Injured” which was submitted to the commander of

Base Gagetown and circulated widely among senior officers. In this paper

he argued that compensation plus compassion leads to closure for all

concerned, the injured person, family members and the military. As we

have seen, he did not receive any compensation from SISIP although he did

receive a $US 50,000 payment from the United Nations as a result of his

injury.   But he did not feel that he or his family were treated with

compassion following his injury.

    In his testimony Major Henwood made it clear that he had no

complaints with his medical care at any point in his long period of

treatment and rehabilitation. But he was very worried about his wife and

children. Incapacitated himself, he did not believe that the military treated

their needs with imagination or compassion. As he told the Committee:

      …I was being looked after. What you have heard is “I”. The other half of

      the story is the family. There was little or no offer of support by the system

      for my wife and children. However, individuals bent over backwards to

      bend the rules to arrange this or do that. We had to identify a need and then

      they would try to cater to that need. It was not the other way around with


                                        16
        the system saying, “Here is what we can provide for you, what do you

        need?”

        It became very demeaning, and my wife would not keep going to the trough

        looking for help.

        He had to launch an application for redress of grievance just to

receive payment for what he maintained were legitimate costs he and his

family incurred while he was hospitalised. As he told the Committee:

        Had I been mentally injured, I do not know what we would have done. We

        paid for parking at the hospital. At some point my wife took the van off the

        road and racked it up on her way to visit me at the hospital. It was well

        known that that happened, but the military did not offer to provide

        transportation to relieve her of that responsibility completely.

        That is the “compassion” component of the three Cs that I mentioned. That

        is one of the missing elements.8

        The injury left Major Henwood and his wife with some of the

symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Their middle son had some

serious difficulties coming to terms with what had happened to his father

and only after seven years, were there signs of progress. Since Major

Henwood did not qualify for SISIP benefits, he had had to pay for the

counselling and treatment he and his family needed.                        Concurrently,



(8) Ibid., 3 February 2003, 2:27-28.


                                           17
Veterans Affairs paid the costs of his treatment, but it remained to be seen

whether they could support the treatment of his immediate family.9

        Major Henwood made the point that his family needed help the

most, and incurred the greatest out-of-pocket- expenses, between the time

of his injury and the time of his recovery when the full extent of his injuries

had been assessed for the purposes of determining his pension under the

Pension Act, a period of some two years. Since the date of his injury,

September 1995, the Canadian Forces has taken a number of steps to

improve the treatment of injured soldiers.

        Notably, the Canadian Forces set up the Directorate, Casualty

Support and Administration, in 1999. It has been given funds to advance

monies to injured soldiers and their families as necessary to cover such

incidentals as the costs of child care services, parking and transportation

caused by visits to the hospital, and to help former Canadian Forces

members released for medical reasons. A number of other complementary

programs are also available through the military family support centres

across the country.

        As part of the main committee on National Security and Defence,

members of the Subcommittee have visited a number of these family

support centres and can testify that they are very highly thought of by base

commanding officers and other ranks. But their effectiveness is very much

(9) Ibid., 3 February 2003, 2:21.


                                      18
dependent on the personality and initiative of their local executive director

and on the dynamics of their Board of Directors. Consequently, there is no

guarantee that they will offer the same variety and level of service to

injured personnel and their families across the country.

     Almost as soon as the injured member of the Canadian Forces regains

consciousness, two thoughts are never far from his or her mind, “What will

become of me, and what will become of my family”. The non-medical

treatment of injured personnel must address these worries as soon as

possible. It must also take into consideration the fact that in many cases

neither the member nor his/her immediate family will be in an emotional

or psychological condition to find the answers for themselves. It is not

enough to have help available, if it is sought. It must be offered, and

offered by knowledgeable and compassionate people.

The Committee recommends that:

     3. When a member of the Canadian Forces is seriously injured, the

        Department of National Defence immediately assign an officer

        to represent the interests of the member. This officer must be

        knowledgeable about the various benefits to which the member

        and his/her family are entitled, and sufficiently senior and

        experienced to be able and willing to press their interests.

     4. On the basis of the best practices of the family resource centres

        across the country, the Department of National Defence develop


                                     19
        guidelines for the counselling, services and benefits to be

        offered to the families of seriously injured Canadian Forces

        members. These guidelines should include the assignment of

        responsibility for contacting, maintaining contact and briefing

        the family to one person. It is very important that the contact

        person have experience either as someone who has been injured

        or as the spouse of someone that has been injured.


3.   Grievance Settlement



     Major Henwood was injured on 27 September 1995 and released

from the Canadian Forces on 1 April 1998. After more than a year of

fruitless discussion and argument with SISIP over his claim for

compensation, Major Henwood was told in the spring of 1997 that he

would receive no Long-Term Disability benefits.       Once he was denied

coverage, all other SISIP coverage ceased, including access to rehabilitation

programs. He filed an application for Redress of Grievance in May 1997. It

took a year for this grievance to move through the chain of command and

reach the level of the commander of the army, the Chief of Land Staff. The

commander reviewed the policy regarding accidental dismemberment

under SISIP and found that Major Henwood was not being denied benefits




                                     20
to which he was entitled. In effect, the policy did not include the benefits

sought.10

        Major Henwood decided to appeal to the Chief of the Defence Staff in

1998. His grievance and supporting arguments were directed by the Chief

of Defence Staff to the Canadian Forces Grievance Board for their findings

and recommendations.                   In the summer of 2002, the Grievance Board

recommended that his grievance not be supported, basically for the same

reasons as he had been given at the earlier stages of the process. He had

received exactly what he had been entitled to under the plan - a guarantee

of at least 75% of his salary on release, but no lump sum payment in

compensation for loss of his limbs or for the loss of future earnings.

        This ruling by the Grievance Board concerns the Committee.

According to Major Henwood’s testimony, by the time his grievance had

reached the Grievance Board, his entitlements under the SISIP insurance

policy were no longer the most important issue at stake.                 He was

challenging the unequal treatment of senior officers and all other ranks, the

fairness of a policy that paid him no compensation for his injuries, but

would pay a more senior officer $250,000 for the same injuries. It appears

there was no reference to this argument in the reasons given for the

recommendations of the Grievance Board.




(10) Ibid., 3 February 2003, 2:11 and 17-18.


                                                21
      Under limited circumstances the Grievance Board should have and

exercise the power, where issues of fairness or fundamental justice have

been raised or may be involved, of finding against the applicant on the

facts of the grievance, but basing its findings and recommendations on the

broader issues. A few cases, including that of Major Henwood, can most

appropriately be settled at the ministerial level.      This fact should be

reflected in the reasons given for the recommendations and the Chief of

Defence Staff should lay the grievance before the Minister without further

delay. It should take months rather than more than 5 years for a case such

as Major Henwood’s to reach the final level of adjudication – the Chief of

Defence Staff – and to be referred thereafter to the Minister.

The Committee recommends that:

      5. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board exercise the power to

         base its findings and recommendations on broader issues of

         policy where, in its opinion, considerations of fundamental

         justice or fairness would contradict a decision based on the strict

         merits of the grievance and that it be given the power to

         recommend that the grievance be referred to the Minister.

      Since the summer of 2002, his grievance has remained in the hands of

the Chief of the Defence Staff, waiting for the latter to make a final

decision. By the time Major Henwood appeared before the Committee in




                                      22
February 2003, the grievance process had been ongoing for 5 1/2 years.

Although he had been interviewed by officials of the Ombudsman’s office

in August 2002, about six weeks after he raised concerns about the length

of time it was taking to receive a final ruling on his grievance, the

Ombudsman had not submitted a report.11

        According to Lieutenant General Couture, under the current

regulations there is no time limit for the reply of the Chief of Defence Staff.

In 2000 the grievance process was reformed; performance measurement

standards were introduced and more staff was assigned in an effort to

streamline and speed up the decision-making process. Lieutenant General

Couture noted his personal wish that the grievance process be completed

within a year, but admitted that there was some distance to go before this

objective was reached.




(11) Ibid., 3 February 2003, 2:17-18.


                                        23
The Committee recommends that:

  6. The Department of National Defence limit to 12 months the length

    of time the Canadian Forces take to complete the Redress of

    Grievance procedure.      This period should include the time

    required for the Chief of Defence Staff to make a final decision,

    but exclude those times during which the grievance is awaiting

    action by its originator. If this limit cannot be met, the person who

    initiated the grievance must be informed in writing of the reasons

    for the delay and must be given a not-later-than date for a final

    decision by the Chief of Defence Staff.




                                  24
                                        LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS



The Committee recommends:

  1. That the Department of National Defence entitle all members of

    the Canadian Forces, regardless of rank, to the same full coverage

    for accidental death and dismemberment.

  2. That the Department of National Defence introduce at the earliest

    possible time retroactivity to the payment of accidental death and

    dismemberment benefits to Canadian Forces personnel who have

    been injured while on duty in the past.

  3. When a member of the Canadian Forces is seriously injured, the

    Department of National Defence immediately assign an officer to

    represent the interests of the member.        This officer must be

    knowledgeable about the various benefits to which the member

    and his/her family are entitled, and sufficiently senior and

    experienced to be able and willing to press their interests.

  4. On the basis of the best practices of the family resource centres

    across the country, the Department of National Defence develop

    guidelines for the counselling, services and benefits to be offered

    to the families of seriously injured members of the Canadian

    Forces.   These guidelines should include the assignment of



                                   25
  responsibility for contacting, maintaining contact and briefing the

  family to one person. It is very important that the contact person

  have experience either as someone who has been injured or as the

  spouse of someone that has been injured.

5. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board exercise the power to base

  its findings and recommendations on broader issues of policy

  where, in its opinion, considerations of fundamental justice or

  fairness would contradict a decision based on the strict merits of

  the grievance and that it be given the power to recommend that the

  grievance be referred to the Minister.

6. The Department of National Defence limit to 12 months the length

  of time the Canadian Forces take to complete the Redress of

  Grievance procedure.      This period should include the time

  required for the Chief of Defence Staff to make a final decision,

  but exclude those times during which the grievance is awaiting

  action by its originator. If this limit cannot be met, the person who

  initiated the grievance must be informed in writing of the reasons

  for the delay and must be given a not-later-than date for a final

  decision by the Chief of Defence Staff.




                                26
                                                        LIST OF WITNESSES


37th Parliament – 2nd Session

                         PUBLIC HEARINGS IN OTTAWA

Couture, Lieutenant-General Christian, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human
     Resources – Military, Department of National Defence (February 12,
     2003)

Geci, Mr. John, President, Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency
      (CFPSA) (February 12, 2003)

Henwood, Major (Retired) Bruce (February 3, 2003)

Lemay, Mr. Pierre, President, Service Income Security Insurance Plan
    (SISIP), Department of National Defence (February 12 and February
    19, 2003)

Martin, Ms. Kathleen, Manager, Service Income Security Insurance Plan
     (SISIP), Maritime Life (February 12, 2003)

McCallum, The Honourable John, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence
    (February 19, 2003)

Mogg, Mr. David, President, March Forth Benefits (February 3, 2003)

Potvin, Mr. Bernard, Principal, Mercer, Human Resource Consulting
      (February 3, 2003)

Ranger, Mr. Richard, Director of Finance, The Senate (February 3, 2003)

Siew, Captain (N) Andrea, Director, Quality of Life, Department of
     National Defence (February 19, 2003)




                                       27
                                       APPENDIX 1
MATRIX OF BENEFITS AS SUBMITTEDBY MAJOR HENWOOD




                     29
                              APPENDIX II
BIOGRAPHIES OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE




             31
(Senator Atkins)




                   The Honourable NORMAN K. ATKINS,
                   Senator

                   Senator Atkins was born in Glen Ridge, New
                   Jersey. His family is from Nova Scotia and New
                   Brunswick, where he has spent a great deal of
                   time over the years. He is a graduate of the
                   Appleby College in Oakville, Ontario, and of
                   Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia,
                   where he studied economics and completed a
                   Bachelor of Arts programme in 1957. (Senator
                   Atkins subsequently received an Honourary
                   Doctorate in Civil Law in 2000, from Acadia
                   University, his old “alma mater”.)

A former President of Camp Associates Advertising Limited, a
well-known Toronto-based agency, Senator Atkins has also played
an active role within the industry, serving, for instance, as a
Director of the Institute of Canadian Advertising in the early
1980’s.

Over the years, Senator Atkins has had a long and successful career
in the field of communications – as an organizer or participant in a
number of important causes and events. For instance, and to name
only a few of his many contributions, Senator Atkins has given of
his time and energy to Diabetes Canada, the Juvenile Diabetes
Foundation, the Dellcrest Children’s Centre, the Federated Health
Campaign in Ontario, the Healthpartners Campaign in the Federal
Public Service as well as the Chairperson of Camp Trillium-
Rainbow Lake Fundraising Campaign.

Senator Atkins was also involved with the Institute for Political
Involvement and the Albany Club of Toronto. (It was during his


                                 32
(Senator Atkins)




tenure as President in the early 1980’s that the Albany Club, a
prestigious Toronto private club, and one of the oldest such clubs
across the country, opened its membership to women.)

Senator Atkins has a long personal history of political
involvement. In particular, and throughout most of the last 50
years or so, he has been very active within the Progressive
Conservative Party – at both the national and the provincial levels.
Namely, Senator Atkins has held senior organizational
responsibility in a number of election campaigns and he has served
as an advisor to both the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Rt. Hon.
Robert L. Stanfield, as well as the Hon. William G. Davis.

Norman K. Atkins was appointed to the Senate of Canada on June
29, 1986. In the years since, he has proven to be an active,
interested, and informed Senator. In particular, he has concerned
himself with a number of education and poverty issues. As well,
he has championed the cause of Canadian merchant navy veterans,
seeking for them a more equitable recognition of their wartime
service. Senator Atkins served in the United States military from
September 1957 to August 1959.

Currently, Senator Atkins is the Chair of the Progressive
Conservative Senate Caucus, Deputy Chair of Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration, as well as a member of both the
National Security and Defence Committee and the Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee. He is also the Honourary Chair of the Dalton K.
Camp Endowment in Journalism at Saint-Thomas University in
Fredericton, New Brunswick and Member of the Advisory Council,
Acadia University School of Business.




                                 33
(Senator Day)




                   The Honourable JOSEPH A. DAY, Senator

                   Appointed to the Senate by the Rt. Honourable
                   Jean Chrétien, Senator Joseph Day represents
                   the province of New Brunswick and the
                   Senatorial Division of Saint John-Kennebecasis.
                   He has served in the Senate of Canada since
                   October 4, 2001.

                   He is currently a Member of the following
Senate Committees: Agriculture and Forestry; National Security
and Defence; and, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, National
Finance and Transport and Communications. He is Deputy Chair
of the National Finance as well as the Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs. Areas of interest and specialization include: science and
technology, defence, international trade and human rights issues,
and heritage and literacy.         He is a member of many
Interparliamentary associations, including the Canada-China
Legislative Association and the Interparliamentary Union.

A well-known New Brunswick lawyer and engineer, Senator Day
has had a successful career as a private practice attorney. His legal
interests include Patent and Trademark Law, and intellectual
property issues. Called to the bar of New Brunswick, Quebec, and
Ontario, he is also certified as a Specialist in Intellectual Property
Matters by the Law Society of Upper Canada, and a Fellow of the
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. Most recently (1999-2000)
he served as President and CEO of the New Brunswick Forest
Products Association. In 1992, he joined J.D. Irving Ltd., a
conglomerate with substantial interests in areas including forestry,
pulp and paper, and shipbuilding, as legal counsel. Prior to 1992
he practiced with Gowling & Henderson in Kitchener-Waterloo,



                                  34
(Senator Day)




Ogilvy Renauld in Ottawa, and Donald F. Sim in Toronto, where
he began his career in 1973.

An active member of the community, Senator Day currently chairs
the Foundation, and the Board of the Dr. V.A. Snow Centre
Nursing Home, as well as the Board of the Associates of the
Provincial Archives of New Brunswick. Among his many other
volunteer efforts, he has held volunteer positions with the
Canadian Bar Association and other professional organizations,
and served as National President of both the Alumni Association
(1996) and the Foundation (1998-2000) of the Royal Military College
Club of Canada.


Senator Day holds a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the
Royal Military College of Canada, an LL.B from Queen’s
University, and a Masters of Laws from Osgoode Hall.




                                35
(Senator Kenny)


                      The Honourable COLIN KENNY, Senator


                      Career History
                      Sworn in on June 29th, 1984 representing the Province
                      of Ontario. From 1970 until 1979 he worked in the
                      Prime Minister’s Office as Special Assistant, Director of
                      Operations, Policy Advisor and Assistant Principal
                      Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable
                      Pierre Trudeau.

Committee Involvement
During his parliamentary career, Senator Kenny has served on numerous
committees. They include the Special Committee on Terrorism and Security
(1986-1988 and 1989-1991), the special Joint Committee on Canada’s Defence
Policy (1994), the Standing Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce, the
Standing Committee on National Finance, and was the Chair of the Standing
Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (1995-1997).

In 1995, Senator Kenny became the first Senator to successfully pass a Private
Senator’s Bill through parliament to become a law. The bill was the
Alternative Fuels Act, which mandates that 75% of the federal governments
vehicles run on alternative fuels by the year 2004.

He is currently Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security
and Defence. Senator Kenny is also currently a member of the Steering
Committee of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment
and Natural Resources and in the past has served as Vice- Chair. Senator
Kenny has been a member of this committee since 1985.

Defence Matters
Senator Kenny has been elected as Rapporteur for the Defence and Security
Committee on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Prior to that he was Chair
of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Subcommittee on the Future Security
and Defence Capabilities and Vice-Chair of the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly Subcommittee on the Future of the Armed Forces.




                                      36
(Senator Meighen)



                    The Honourable MICHAEL A. MEIGHEN,
                    Senator

                  Appointed to the Senate in 1990, the Honourable
                  Michael Meighen serves on various Senate Standing
                  Committees including Banking Trade and Commerce,
                  Fisheries, National Security and Defence, and chairs
                  the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. He has also
                  served on the Special Joint Committee on Canada’s
Defence Policy and the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada.

In his private career, Senator Meighen is Counsel to the law firm Ogilvy
Renault, and was Legal Counsel to the Deschênes Commission on War
Criminals. He is Chairman of Cundill Funds (Vancouver) and sits on the
Board of Directors of Deutsche Bank Canada, Paribas Participations
Limited, AMJ Campbell Inc., J.C. Clark Ltd. (Toronto).

Senator Meighen’s record of community service includes the Salvation
Army, Stratford Festival, Toronto and Western Hospital, Prostate Cancer
Research Foundation, Atlantic Salmon Federation, T.R. Meighen
Foundation, University of King’s College (Chancellor), University of
Waterloo Centre for Cultural Management, Université Laval, McGill
University.

Senator Meighen is a graduate of McGill University and Université
Laval. He lives in Toronto with his wife Kelly and their three children.




                                   37
(Senator Wiebe)


                  The Honourable John (Jack) Wiebe, Senator

                  Jack Wiebe is one of Saskatchewan's leading citizens.
                  He has been a highly successful farmer, as well as a
                  member of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly.

                  And in 1994, he became the first farmer to be
                  appointed to the position of Lieutenant Governor of
                  Saskatchewan in almost 50 years.

Senator Wiebe first became known in Saskatchewan as a leader in the
farm community. He and his family built a thriving farm in the Main
Center district of the province, and from 1970-86 he was owner and
President of L&W Feeders Ltd.

Senator Wiebe has been very involved with the co-operative movement,
and has served on the Main Center Wheat Pool Committee, the Herbert
Credit Union, the Herbert Co-op, and the Saskatchewan Co-operative
Advisory Board. He has also been active with the Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool, and the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association. He is currently
the Saskatchewan Chairman of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.

Senator Wiebe was elected in 1971 and 1975 as a Member of the
Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly for the constituency of Morse.

Senator Wiebe and his wife, Ann, have raised three daughters and have
four grandchildren.

Current Member of the following Senate committee(s):

Agriculture and Forestry, Deputy Chair; National Security and Defence;
Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs; Rules, Procedures and the Rights of
Parliament.




                                  38

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:2/23/2011
language:English
pages:41